Pheeling
by Principius
Summary: After completing his journal, as far as he was interested in it, he got to writing a philosophical treatise that just like his journal mixes elements from multiple dimensions. Sequel to the Journal of Callo.
1. Chapter 1

The only reason to have a self is: power. We realize great powers come forth through processes measured in time. Their systems are totally systematized according to length. So we realize that the activity of power is reflection. The power of any one thing or phenomenon comes from implied motion. Realizing, finally, the coherence of the whole, this is our world: contrast.

1\. Power

I am only capable of destilling power from the whole, because I made the whole, therefore: power comes from the ignorant self, learning from the knowledgeable self; but one can't learn without power. Therefore, learning and powers are equal in value.

2\. Length

The powerful are ignorant about themselves. However, the length of their ignorance is short, whereas the ignorance of length is great: relatively speaking, they know much.


	2. Chapter 2

Power versus length

To satisfy curiosity, I recollected, is frowned upon; yours truly – I – frown, usually, upon the restrictions placed upon those who are driven not by curiosity, but to it. The old learning, that was so eagerly made true (it might as well be), by recollection, to be alive, has now been completely subsumed by Philosophy, as a German, not a republican, tradition. Yours I art, to thou who art, thee; thine world is no arte – die art.

From the ash of art we arise again, indeed as Phoenixes, Germanically commenting on 'Anglo-saxon' scholarly persuits. All answers were given to us by Hegel, and after him, the best book ever was Hitler's, yet, for I, that 'book' is, in fact, not very good. Here, in my pondorous place, like Hegel, every moment that is here proclaimed as "art" has to be "recollected" by "remembrance" – "remember".

"Remember"

I saw, written in desperation, or acceptance. They say he was a prisoner. I don't know if he die. Yet, I do remember the anxiety. In those moments in days of lonely hopelessness; but still, those people, who do all that, they are a bunch, living it up. There really isn't real sensibility, and English in many preternatural quintessences is the only language for quality-expressive business. Shakespeare, the playwright, is nephew to me. Russell, truly, criticized Hegel, and although I couldn't follow his criticism, it taught me a lot. Hegel I get. Here, then, we must study the struggles within Philo-sophy, philosophicalisty - philologistics, philologologic, sopsophy and sophological sophologicalistic sophistry. This hopefully will allow us to _remember_ the sophisms of Spinoza, and finally birth philosophy in English.

This, the paragraph, will form the unit of this writing. So, there will be no chapters, no subheadings, preferably no more quotes. Live and let live is not true enough. Text. If it is true that 'listening' is measurable, we should into being that measure. Saying "I am Immanuel Kant" doesn't say much coming from the author of the book of Proverbs, in the Bible.

Good acts flow from being excused. The meaning of our acts is material, so I dare say English philosophy or intellectual expertise should be classified as Materialist. As one waits for being freed. I don't see anything. How listening works, I, yours truly, don't know, frankly because these methods we have to reach the status of princely methodology, this really does not achieve royal blood in any realistic sense. Going away, really, brings one closer to evolution, and this was imparted to us by the prophets. I will, then, never let up in my search for everything. Although one's might can lead one into power, length certainly cannot. English philosophy cannot reach out to the formal: and so, logic. So, the old-style philosophy has been called 'Analytic', to expand upon the arguments of the philosophical, the inhuman, the mechanical, philosophy wears upon its sleeve the diatribes that were invented by the Arabian mentalists. They, like Aristotle, worked with what they thought to be actually true, but, unlike Aristotle, they never logistically phenomenologize the logos of eternity, which I suppose might be typically aristotelean.

Every succeeding paragraph will, from now on, pertain to others, just like Euclidean 'analysis' pertain to the underlying idea. As a rule, our real sensibility works on relativistic principles. Relativity, in scientific terms, is certainly explicable, which led us to the special theory of relativity, E = MC2. Space, once unfathomable, is now in deciciveness explicative: the general theory, then, crowned this achievement, by adding categorical Will to the explicatives immediately connected to the concept of space. Theses on the mind often, as far as one is conscerned, go nowhere. On this topic, we must seek silence. But since, and this is why we all enshew quietism, silence is still ;power, theses on the mind are eternally relevant, and again, relativity explicates the foundational length of the universe. Let us then, as Philosophy, exclaim the reflectivity of the mind, and, as physics, its relativity.

Next paragraph, no one person to every other, proclaims Theses to Thesis. Where thinking or dividing is calculation, we already eye one's potential. Such – power – pi – p - p, we see, we gauge, is wholly irrespectively set within space, that is to say, conical conic-technic predescription. Philosophy, then, is length in ourselves, but power in the otherness of the self. High-flown description can never really do anything for us, because we cannot where-enable the formulae necessary, so the honor of the measurement, unfortunately, gets obstrated. No or yes: in that left-to-right set, there progress exists. T8-T. Formulae. Having formulae, problems may be solved. Wherein the true fate of formulae lies, only God knows; might, visibly at least, does make rightness remain right, yet no being belongs properly to a right like that or this, even.

This will not mean even. It will mean the life against opposition. Or the difference, or the contrast. Or, certainly, life decries derangement, as eras sublimely essentialized to law, and that makes it, in a way, temporary. Yes – fixation ostensibly positive, but everywhere (unfortunately) decried, in fact, because of the truly ineffible deconstruction over due. Symbols have in fact abstractly zero meaning. To symbolize in fact means particularly so. Correctly understood, knowledge works to relay one's learned selfhood-to-thought. Selves state their mind: in due time, this creates a vacuüm to representation; also known as a power vacuüm.

No – fixatives pluralizing derangement. Thesis X, to state one's austere mind, learn and observe description, gravely reigns with great force over all science. Realistically, very many theses are overblown, overly resolute or magnificent. Of course, this matters, but the restrictions placed upon logic by thought are very large and necessarily diverse. Having a drive to accomplish the necessary things; having sense in serious encounters; not, really, having _sensibility_ – finally losing all at length, striving decovert covery to disembark without. This then redeems the practical to the absolutely virtuous. To make the reality realistic, one must not be fearful of the mental, to some extent.

The myriad ways in which people corroborate their usefullness to society, are often meaningless: pain is meaningless. Still, no pain, no gain: the meaningless is a necessary factor in growth. We recognize then the important factor of _motivation_: to achieve stature, a genius does what he can to realize the thoughts of pragmatic origin, into a sensibility that overpowers the whole: this, then, allows us to overcome the hortifying: the glass ceiling.

A time can occur in which, indeed, our strength to perform fails, but then finally we can regard these mighty truths: indeed. Singular genius exists in everything, but also in the totality of the one, it exists. A genius, then, works completely independently, and can perform the greatest art of genius – to be – everywhere, at all times and continually. The past saw many mad-artists, like Wölfli, who's ceaseless work was seemingly based on nothing. This is not genius. Although we must admire the greatness of such a man, we must learn from this example that the capacity for work is a different actuality than actual power.

I realize that Hegel also lacked this genius, and mine, where we find it, is completely random. But I dare say the ability to process worries, dealing with enemies, loving people et cetera, are each different aspects of the same thing, namely being. Hegel is great because he worked out Kant, but we must not forget that to be a philosopher, in every way one must be able to do everything himself. To outdo Hegel just a little, I have taken this grand project unto myself, to understand Philosophy from its physical essence. I see that, sure, we are sometimes too content with what we got, but the bigger problem is clearly our total unhappiness. Because the man who wants power, the man who remains at case all the time, is probably a better man than the jealous, contriving, gossiping, USELESS petit bourgeois figure, who leaves other people to clean up their own mess.

Sign communicate. The genius-creation, though, cyphers the deeper significance of the sign, and attempts, at all times, irony. Not though, importantly, ironically, but only in its actual significance, that has been, preternaturally, through sensative and vegetative processes, measured, classified and interpreted, which is then going category for going and for-itself. We realize, really, that we can always begin the spiritual. I am not sure what helps us do the work of genius, and indeed it depends on the project, but I will state now categorically, that this writing is not a work of art. Time teaches us that it doesn't matter if our thought has content that refers to our activity. I realize that signs, then, indicate not thought but activity. Motivation is probably, mentally, mostly a factor that can't really work on _independent_ principles. Clearly, our task is to work out the details of strict categories, that do always on the products of everything in existence. Every actual thing, were it universal, is therefore brought to bear upon the verisimilitude of one thing or other, and that makes the system turn upon practice. If we are to seriously create the work that beings down the system of knowledge, as far as we know, the cessation of eventualities will bring an overt meaninglessness to the table – something that genius can – always – avoid.

To make good on our lack of motivation, philosophy offers little shelter. However, we can through hard labour, achieve a greater constancy within our productivity, and, through conceptualization, realize the truth. I am quite convinced that our ability to accomplish the preternaturally fascinating, that corroborates the stars in their motion and brings the absolute back to us. The continuity of our productivity is unrelated to the eventual product. Our book, here it is, needs to be written in short sprints, I experience, because we don't like it enough to write continually: on the other hand, none of the factors that determine whether or not we are decisively capable of energetic unification within any productive activity. Finishing our work is easier if the work itself is wholly our own. The desire to look ahead, to do our activities all the time, is over there, and also it is clear that we should pick our battles. We must realize that everyone is, potentially, against us. Thinking, it must be said, definitely doesn't cut it in the grand scheme of things. Nobody ever gets what people do every day, but the affair of daily activity is truly not necessary to get the productivity actually motivated in time.

A good symbol retains the contents of its object. This means the serendipity of any symbol lies in its work. The work of any symbol is obtained from necessity – a final step in the right direction, can indeed make a huge difference, especially where attentive revelation is conscerned. Each and every situation is potentially definitely a division, certainly, that can bring us excitement, strength and progress. To properly understand length, only a moment can be interpreted. This is, then, the moment of any particular person. There must never abandonment be caused by the absence of congruence that lies within our factu-factional idemdito. For here, all is lost.

Let us then describe what we ought capably consider the true faultlines of cohesion. Motion is totally delineative, and we see that we need to bring about clear shifts in the precise regard for all those things. Sense for us means exactly the what of every sensible option that is available to us – otherwise put, we can distill the nature of every being from its fundamental relation to absolute meaninglessness, or accept, simply, its brief or perpetual being. This, therefore, allows the thinking subject to derive, from the elements, the necessary contingency, reconciling us to the source material. Where the content of the sources, then, proves the senselessness of an argumentative construction, a person may, verily, decry the sensibility of anyone lost-to-thinking, for it has been unthought by the decay that surrounds psychological time. I would therefore claim that any personable entity, even animals, are capable of meaningful work, but only an animal like the bear brings forth its own freedom. The bear, inspiringly, other than, say, lions, creatively seeks out the word, and can in indecision still decide. Lions are incapable of this, until they achieve either 1) a place in heaven or 2) a heavenly place in being. Either way, they never behave as creatively as bears do.

Was says when the time of so-sayed beings became entity-to-though: timely definitions are layed to some or what. Therefore, anyone must admit that the volume of what we do is very often cornered or disguised as one thing or other. The choice, then, quickly becomes internalized in bears and some other creatures as a word syllable: be. The English word 'bear' therefore clearly conveys the continuity. It is therefore very good to maintain genius through rationality, and here lions achieve a greatness that bears don't have, but because they lack the instinctive genius of bears, to generate their own meaning, lions suffer more and take on a heavier burden. Bears, in their genius, do much to sustain and inspire the authority that lions exhude. This makes the kingdom of nature a princely matter, with lions as princes, bears as explorers and, verily, Jesus as king. But these terms limit nothing: they lack categorical cohesion. To do the right thing, we shall continuously strive to find meaning in the world, because are alive to the world, and this gives us drive, position, insight and determination to receive guidance. Seeing how signs make the world, in essence, seem powerful, is certainly the most rational objective of the seemly philosopher, for his life is not about the words themselves, but the dialogue between him and others.

In every way, the power of the mind is to sustain and develop, over time, the reality of virulent or metastizing affluence in the coherent grind of day to day activity. To get the momentous meaning of sentences, a person needs to achieve affirmative action: the greatness of an activity depends entirely upon the coherence of the underlying intention. "Good" intention, therefore, is based upon "goodness" of the heart, which stems categorically from their meaning in our felt psychosphere. Engaging with though in a wholly realistic way does indeed mean getting on, in the sense of achieving higher perfection; this is only possible where someone engages with revolutionairy protocols in a way that makes sense to the contingency factor, that we cannot term free will, because it is too physical in its measurement, whatever that means. But it is clear that psychical description also has a universal and systematic meaning: in other words, English philosophy becomes English through systems of meaning, that are fundamentally based on the physical. Therefore, the physical is more than basic, it is totally systematizeable. To understand our place in the cosmos, then, the proper understanding power enables is the self.

Here is the convolutedness of our systems comes resolutely to the fore. A person who can work out of the principles of power can understand also the sensibleness of decision, selfhood and arms. The powerful arm themselves physically to defend their values, but also the republic. Only if we can purify the republic from effeminate elements can we grow in our fundamentally determinable suggestivism. So, in this great sense our selfhood gets on the level of higher ideas and here the meaning of ideology is forever assumed under the rubric of ideal perfection, and this can make us idealist. Herein, then, we observe the basics of so-called reason, that does nowadays often translate to dialectics, which doesn't matter. So, to understand our perceived grasp of science, the point of all our thoughts should indeed pertain to the aspect of matter, in a systemizeable, communicative sense.

Seeing fully how thoughts become scientific is more a biological than a intuitive question, so psychology is often first out the window when people lose it. The desolation wrought through senselessness is dialectical also: it is better to suffer evil than to commit it. These strange philosophical statements don't overwhelm us, but instead put us in a position of life. All words retain the original life that lives inside all. In concrete cases, the philosophy of a philosopher is systematic only to one's word-usage, and it requires a scientific object, to achieve righteous science. On the other hand, the abstract content of the valuable in the expressions of the scientific philosopher are numerous, and do, rightly understood, pertain to speculation. As I see what I said before, in the way I put it, clearly in the animal kingdom, the rationality of the individual life of earth animal grants, again, say, a bear, the ability to secundate the binary functionality of the human word and metastize it to understand itself – at that point, we immediately achieve science.

Here therefore the power of the mind is revealed: here, our might is apparent. These moments, in which we try to to write, we conclude already that the might of the word is completely dependend upon the learnedness within one's individual endurance in the historical perception, with all source materialities; all these scientific signs are reluctantly pre-obsessive to total life; and this thenworth sees to oneself the self of the other, that entertains, to onself, the torrentous organism already present. Showing in these 'mistakes' already for oneself what one really is, the perceived origin of the sign of the materially organized is present too. So, the originality does matter.

To completely convey the verisimilitude of the system of the truth, that we understand, we indeed must see the might of the leisure in which the motivation for one's time is understood. Here then, the full indictment of the chronology in which one's leisure is communicated, is made necessary.

We realize how badly people do things, but it is only a problem when the solution is not immediate. Here then. The coming of overt knowledge is gotten through the visible smartness of a distinction, that we read with our eye, and the eye is, then, the psychology of principle; our total endeavor, therefore, is made _here_.

Or is another word. Having or is the manifold having. Therefore we convolute the or as a kind of or. So, the convivial or is a senseless optionality. Therefore we refuse to see all the options. Therefore I must almost debrief the convivial or. The manifold sense of any previous necessary or is the classification of the automatic niceness of the senseless or. If the kind of the full or is made into a or or an other or, abeon is Albion. So the English homeland – England – Is irrelevant to English-language thinking, despite fascist claims to the contrary.

To see then the abstract content of this, philosophy is made interesting. Our continued assessment of life, and the past vanity that has continued all these years, is then, now, finally reduced to the fundament: reality. What is real is based on the positivity of power. This correctly understood brings the light of the revealed estimation to every other person. The question whether people are allowed to treat people are allowed to treat people are allowed to treat people inhumanely, within the confines of law, is: not at all. We see then that the excuse for imprisonment and execution, in all its forms, is economy. Because people can't deal with strict alterity, there are occasional aberrations within the dignity-institutions of society, but these are treated seriously and this never causes extreme, life-denying problems. What we learn, then, is that we _cannot_ see the can't of society as a total way forward, but it can lead to corroborate the whole of society, which always means rectification in a very strict, basic and fundamental idealism. The people of the world respect only symbolic power.

Follow sign 'can't' then, to relieve the presence of the cannot in a strictly hegelian paradigm, and we realize the liberating function of writing itself. To learn about the word, immediate signs are necessary. The strength of our world, immediate signs are necessary. The strength of our words is so very powerful, because each and every single individual can reach the strength of the whole, through magnification: every individual word-segment is led to believe the reach of the world, which can help us learn. To bridge the (lack) of (lacking) of (sense) of everybody of every one is learnable through knowledge, through know-how and know-to-know-knowledge - all of which are indistinguishable from what we hereby achieve: the reach. Within the reach of what we can grasp, everything becomes enabled within our lives, and this is, then, the collectivity of evertthing. All of who seek to oppose us, are wrong – everybody who seeks to hurt us is doomed to misery, all the murderers, will burn in hell. The continuity, from now on, will be visible in what we do say, and what we say is, again: sensation and vegetative sensibility: simple.

Now, then, is truly never the category for science. Yes, the foolish explanation of our horrible glacial age, flows only from what nobody gets: clearly, what everybody doesn't get, is that the heavenly principle is here found in the -anity of humanity, which pertains to its humane intensity. We will consistently apply ourselves then to all those 'lost' to goodness. The right way into God then, is to leave everthing to scholarly endeavor, which is the good word, as opposed to the INTELLECTUAL. The fact then is that both the human and the popular pertains to meaning as meaning, which is the expressible – logical logicianhood.

Inauguration of our new science, therefore, will happen with the lonely "then": our complete grasp of the now and the so-called past, will give the one individual his good way into future life. As the prince of goodness, one must do what other people don't do and this will one day lead us 'then' – a total, fiercesome fear, that many people don't see or realize. The future, then, can only lead us into hardship, because the many are against the one, but are never stronger even if they refuse to accept this. The only theology can attain the status of science. God exists.

It is clear, then, that the whole of what is not how. If we understand everything, we have yet to achieve certainty, but if we can realize power, in any form, this will give one sincere power, power that overwhelms he opponent, and kills him. For the might of the enemy is indeed based on a total insincerity within himself – and even though we know not one of the cruel words of the masses pertain to us, all those words can hurt us if we lose track of our sincerity, and people know this. The long-term effect of madness, then, is social, not mental, and the way to sanity is social, not mental. Therefore, it is not possible to keep people from those they want to see. Therefore, Wölfli was not only a mental case, but also a hermit.

Prince, you must learn. Be true. Above all, don't lie. Don't be insincere to yourself. Don't seek out liars and don't talk to strangers. Then, certainly, you will always know what to do.

Formally, the experimentation reaches this final test: any way, anyhow, but can we also say, anywhere? – here, truthfully, our 'difference', our 'madness', our 'blindness' even, finally reaches its conclusion, abstractly, but through the antinomy of reason becomes concrete again, seemingly saying to us: the true is the whole. If we accept this great hegelian sentence, we can see actuality itself: the name of action. This then refers not to forcing oneself, but to action sans doute – in other words, methodological doubt, as the cynics call it. Philosophical cynicism, however, questions this. Cartesian doubt, then, returns us to the value, but value, as a highly abstract and categorical antinomy, doesn't help us _understand_. I, then, through great personal turmoil and risking my life, tell you all, as a fellow gypsy and, in every part of my being, German boy, to listen to me, for believe me: I don't know anything, but I know one thing pretty much for certain: people just ain't no good, and to learn this, to see this, to understand this, is to say: so long dad. Therefore, God is our heavenly father. I really believe that to perceive sanity with the holy spirit – Vincent van Gogh – the truth remains that we need theory. Theory is basically any thought that be formalized as insight, and theory is the gate to mathematical truth, even as all truth is abstractly theorizeable and always, in a practical sense, actualized through a theoretical framework.

Explicitly, this powerful systemizeable 'fysik' of natural 'intentionality', allows us to grasp directly what different things are. The truth about life is that the threshhold has been passed - we are long past the point of no return, but now, at least, we can use theory to take formal steps, at least, as one does in logic. The 'fysik' of nature allows us then to, paradoxically, be Careless in our meditation. After all, strict meditation is an exhausting process that demands a trip into _nowhere_. The bigger picture, the drive of the world, is sustainable, real and in the here and now – an attack on ourselves. The strange people of the ritualistic madness, the Vogons, are probably not real. Yet their rituals are. Their thoughts are. Their actions, perhaps, too. What is it then to say they are not real? – nothing. Let us then state: nothing.

The thought process that we engage in, is what scientists have termed a discourse of splitting. The process of splitting, within the discourse, is certainly consequential, pivotal, discursive. However, to me it is clear that it is also iterative. We realize then that our slow process of certainty is reached benifscently through benediction, strength of will and, indeed, higher perfection. As we get our thoughts in order, the process takes on a different guise, and we are led, handsomely, into omnipotence, the Italian dream and the female companion. In the post-genius stage of procedural freedom, then, all science becomes is the life-giving attachement of meaningful discourse to phenomena. Here, then, we see in the overt and direct indication why it doesn't matter what we do, because nothing matters anyway.

We are forced to realize that there is nothing more to think about. This then becomes the realization for acute thought, in a world seemingly completely wrong because of the wickedness with which people pursue their schemes, schemes that make absolutely no sense to anyone except themselves. The lesson for the prince, then, must be that the princess worth saving is already dead.

The main split, then, that we indeed must make is scientific in origin, and has the wickedness of man is incredibly apparent: they distinguish themselves in contrast to perceived objects, irrespective of what these are. This is incredible because they are each and every one of them horrible criminals. They are wrong in everything they do. In their evil, they blame others, even after their actual murder of another.

Now the process becomes simply continuing the scientific enterprise that has now been expressed. The difference with the hegelian paradigm is that I do motivate this personally through the bear-like genius of the word be and its extrapolation. Hegel relied on the genius of history, that was found, above all, in Jesus. I rely on the fact that I can reasonably think anything, even writing a book like this, and I don't, or, preferably, do not, have to sacrifice independence, spirit or sanity to the masses to succeed. Hegel, after all, at times paid a price in these categories to appeal to the Kantian influence, that increased the _urgency_ of his program. The main thing for me, then. My work has no urgency. In fact, it has value, merit and content, but only as a work, by a human hand, to forever silence the voice that shouts ignorance, and to provide a practical English-language alternative to the work of Hegel and his profound followers.

Therefore we must. In these pages I will elucidate in prose the might of the word as a figmentation to philosophy. The might of the word will never contain the revelations of any one ordeal, and so on, but we must accept that the weird sensibility of the world is constant in the way of its own conception; here, then, the obvious containment within one's experience is obvious to us, and to everyone else, as far as individual hardship is conscerned. The book I am writing is then the very illustration of the manifold ways in which one's insight becomes totally disconnected from the understanding, or so, finally culminating in vagery, self-deception, non-expression, non-elucidation and so on. To see what that means, a wise man must come into being, a wise individual: this work, then, is ultimately a science of the unconscious, mostly conscerning, at least in this paragraph, the way in which science is abstracted in value, and how value execerbates abstraction, in scientific labor and in the accomplishment of standards of knowing. The great fear I still feel, a by-product of my suffering in the past, is slowly fading, because every thought, that I express in this book, conveys to me the clear insight, once again, that no harm can come to the body politic, to the extend that it is republican. And this I value. The brain that I possess, no better than that of anyone else's, learns slowly to grasp the vast continuity of science. Science, then, probably indicates a post-theoretical, post-scientific science, that we learn about through hardship. The very idea of science, then, is expressed through the brain's capacity to do scientific thinking; everywhere the mind is fulminating against the other, but in our own brain. the mind works to bring about an oblique change, that is not at all temporary, but lives forever. The health of any one individual, here, depends upon only one's mind. I see, then, that if we can think ourselves out of our predicament, potentially, this is pretty much the same as escaping from it in actuality. We don't need to prove it.

Era's of continuity have passed before us. We must admit that substantially, we have not lost. If we are to die, at least let it not be before our time. If we are to be ignorant, at least let it not be in darkness. If we are to be alone, at least let it be in freedom. The meaning of language is not really determinable through what our life seeks to be or to reach, after someone has completed some detail, or added some aspect to the whole, and this, then, is expected to be one or other thing, even though it is not.

To seek knowledge is seriously made up, yet it is clearly that kind of search, that we lose as we reach certainty, and here most nonsensicality in discourse, perhaps even academically, is encountered. The kind of tradition that this endeavor, to retrace Hegel, leads up to, is really quite familiar to us when we think of what Hegel tried to do. My continuous, schizophrenic reference to Hegel is logical, but is always so very unreligious, that will it mean. I guess that we must let go of Hegel. The reason I keep referring to him, though, is because I owe him so much, because just saying his name, already, informs the reader more, than to explain the program. However, now we can formulate the matter at hand: to prepare a scientific, philosophical corpus. This corpus must not necessarily be existential, but of course, perfection could be achieved that way; the purpose of this book, then, is to be existentialist in some form. We do realize therefore, that our chief goal differs from Hegel in only the grave character of our perceived tradition, which will, clearly, become the first tradition of philosophical writing, based on living, progressive discourse.

In a very real way, no one can measure the rewards of sincere diretion to thought, because so few people realize what everything is. Clearly, all we do is framed and limited by things that we don't get, that are pointless to ourselves, because we don't want to what everything is. In every way, then, the contents of the thought we think is direct, because it works only in one direction, and that is all that we can do, no more. The words are composed by letters, which collectively state the symbolism that controls humanity and leashes their manifest destinies, that they concoct for their friends. I and many others cannot feel sympathy for something like that.

Obviously, we need one category, to see clearly the function of our psychological concepts in our daily life. The man who uses thoughts to work out what one does to think up what one does to do things, as one does. The length of one's days depends also on one's relation to time. If we realize one or other thing, nobody really needs to do what is necessary: truly, vixit. The dreaded phrase does absolutely convey the purpose of one's life experience, and I can say if I died tomorrow, I would be content. Even if through some trick I would be surprised or alarmed, definitely I am convinced my wisdom will allow me to see it as a fruitful opportunity or failing that, a logical inconvenience. Leaving explanatory difficulty behind us. Everyone must begin with the contradiction. This, obviously, leaves the rationality of speculation completely against itself. This reveals the people to people-sensible naturality: sensibility. Wisdom, then, comes from what we would deem conclusions in fact being revealed as totally arbitrary, vague and senseless. The purpose of everything we do is in fact a clear result of the price we pay to sustain our body. If we have clothing and food and oher great things, our life will be easy, but if we fail to curb our personal enthusiasm for life, people will hold it against us, even though their consumption has not ceased or even lessened. The problem of society can then find repair politic-systemthinking.

Freedom then consists of being able to do what you want. We see that this is possible first and foremost as truth. The truth heals the process of theoretization when it applies to learning, but it also applies to other things, such as the execution of tasks, destruction and, finally, death. The power of life is then to e healed by truth. The king must be the one gifted with healing hands as a wise Englishman might say – true, we are searching for the king, to find who he is. I don't want to die at an early age. The power of will, however, must be found forever assaulted, conclusively, by the fact that it is tentamount to just be activation. Truly, what any man must learn with his total respect toward any one thing, as far as one is conscerned, the main is the central task of being oneself. I therefore claim that to realize the truth within oneself, one must do fully what others do more gradually, to finish one thing or other and maintain the severity of any one constitution.

Soon enough, the realization becomes obvious that our theories fail in strict necessity. The truth we see is greatly determineable by what we bring down to Earth what the individuals made happen, what they did and accomplish. The mainstay of the coherence, that is leverage, to achieve one thing, is to be allowed in onself to get going. To get wiser is usually to follow one's will-to-power: one learns how to get stronger such as the woman of a young man said. And that will be what to the one who thinks (in words). Our lack of satisfaction in our, sociopathic, thought-need is decried by the unconscious masses as 'evil' or 'wrong', even though Alladin, the diamond in the rough, the prince, is a sociopath.

The mass-consciousness of what must be called 'humanity' is a by-product of sin. Truly, the mass-individual is pure vanity and couples with vanity. This means that all mass-individuality is phylogenetical in its ultimate economy. When we write 'economics', we must avoid over-fysicalizing the world in which we live and are alive, to significance, belief and realization, mechenization, instrumentality and thinking as it is. The might, then, as opposed to power, clearly it is rooted in the dimension of dimensionality, as in multiple dimensions versus just a couple. The most powerful dimensionality is clearly being, but the mightiest is theory. After a long time of existence, our being becomes dependent upon the very identity of the individual, as far as he or she is concerned. This is a pivotal moment. The individual learns to get going in his own way, to get one's power in clear order. Very many people communicate senselessly, but it is reflected in their personal disorganization, which is brought down through ignorance.

The mere mentioning of a name is revealed to us through mesmerizing fatalities, that we conduct, that we unravel as we make good contact with certain people. Our the is only the because of the determinative the, this is the only "then", therefore we write the to convey then through, therefore. As nobody feels the effect of the knowing subject except for the subject itself, the only thing for one to do is to reveal unto oneself the learning that one does engage with superfluously, to get everything there is to get, and so on. He or she is determined in the same way. One sees the conversation going on between the and one the or therein, and fullwell conveys the wherefore: a systematic guarding of any one word, fully conveyed to make one or other worth thinking within, or rather, without, to maintain in very factuality the read-in-reading of one's mind, that does, as a matter of fact, what it all means. In the end, science is not an unfathomable truthiness – rather, science finds itself explained as the history of words that relativity conveyedly purvey the segmentation of intrinsic, exhilirating divisions, that pertain not to our way of life, but to the eternal, mesemerizing science. In such high areas, the human and cruel tendency to understate the obvious, to get at one's heart, the cynical, really doesn't seem to us more than a bad dream, even though all those people are held accountable, by someone, for everything they claim to have to laugh about and unfortunately refuse to change. These oracular sentiments that are so often crucial to people, can be clearly utilized to find oratorational paradigms, already hidden. The intentions of strict speakers are often hidden by our fellows that we don't or can't understand. On the subject of penal law, for instance, the barriers put on by advocates clouds the mind of the law, which is blind, for the judge is a purely rhetorical category. We see then that no country with justice can ever allow politicians to practice demagoguery, because if this is allowed, all advocacy is meaningless.

Here, clearly, our power is shown to have severe limitations, but if we return to forever, the island of coherence that has been clarified through metastizing, high and mighty, reveals to everyone the leads that underlie or undermine the restoration of everyone. To properly get the divisions done that lead one to the kind of activity that make one's life worthwhile. So the only category that we need is life, but in a scientific sense: biology. This, then, means what all believe life to be: this is our true, relativistic returns, the vengeance and persecution of the imaginary but undeniable aspect of the highest, most abstract things. Knowing precisely how the power of the infinite returns of the might: since. All knowledge since can be reduced to strict categorical elucidation; the God of the past is still alive in the present. If we are forced, by law, into nowhere, we might end up dead. Our denial of the personal and knowing how the inevitable can be reassuring, because it gives us peace of mind, is somehow rarely comforting, whereas he promise of an oblique figure, no matter who it is, can very much help us, to get go-giving returns to apply to life.

Our life demands a righteous membership to see what the mesmerizing attitude of anyone could be: vampire. So the vampire, as a hungarian entitity, is great for us, because of the dark father-figure, as an alterity in God. For if we say that God is a father, we must call all fatherhood to him: the name-calling of the good God is therefore, perhaps, like calling a father or other relative. Bears, truly the most godlike animals, seem capable to leave in perfect equinamity, in every condition of things. They do their thing, always, undisturbed by encroaching civilization and can easily intimidate, scare and defeat all their (human) enemies. This has allowed to survive succesfully. But humanity's devastation is so total, apparently, that they can't survive very prolifically, and these days, not many bear-holding wildernesses remain. The bear is so great as a creation of God that our imagination can't help but find itself jostled by the greatness of bears. The point of our existence is indeed to do so much to entertain even the most unlikely propositions. What we hereby learn is that knowledge greatly increases through logic, but that logic itself, through sensative and vegetative processes in our heads, in our brain, automatically brings about a mighty change in the sex of one's logical conundrum, so to speak. The gender of language is struck in our lingual life, it is not profound. I am of the opinion that the profundity of life comes from being ungenderedly capable of sex, indeed finding sexual partners that have the right kind of beauty, not necessarily the best kind, whatever that even means, which explains fetish and taboo.

If we continue accordingly in the fast belief that all we do is relevant, the animal that sustenantly perceives in us the greatness of one's principled suggestion to full life, and soon, this will give us the need to reach out and give a man his due. As a matter of fact, our relief at feeling in control, for ourselves, is overt, manifest, left to one's own devices. Total annihilation is thereby confirmed. No resolute man responds in kind: the totality. Surely, in a very real sense, the grasp we gain over the mighty powers of the whole world, do indeed very mightely make the bounderies of the world apparent, giving us the need to work everything out. To distill, again, from the basic elements the necessity that is present in any tradition, the gratification, also, of knowing full-well the intention of one's actions and the importance (and total effectiveness) of the communicative act, is everywhere and indeed makes us understand, reach out and grasp the letter of one's word-wording-thought-proceduration – a quary-mark to the sun's periphrase.

These queries that are totalement: all must learn total obedience to God, in one important sense: thought. If experience teaches us to be free, clearly God can teach us, in important ways, to live. The mesmerizing effect of the divine principles that do seem reconciliable with the thoughts of our Lord, are then properly named thought, because the science, that compells all to at least think for oneself, and potentially for everyone else, if sin has consumed the society in which we are, miserably, conceived, the product of a cretin family, then we see, makes us think also, for passive knowledge is impractically rationalized. Theories come and go. Can or would indicate this. Would indicating can is this. This indicating would or can this be. Therefore, all we can do is would-be. The great need for people to attack what they deem unseemly is sometimes wearisome. We must realize, however, that it takes time to do something, and the more aggresive one's face, the greater was the distortion and disfigurement of their person, as they engaged in the malignancy. The crime is punishable, but the lie, unfortunately, is not.

If we are to learn from our mistakes, let us then, first of all, determine the mastery of one's need to presuppose the way forward. All ways, that exist, are predispositions toward the same, the crudeness of prototypical iteration, and so on. We are forced to believe that the nations of the world don't really work, because everybody learns, in due time, what it all means, in a total, relic-like ingnominy, that stares at the individualist like a Lord of the Flies; and flies do contain energy, and the do relieve life in many cases. All that is strange to a person, because he can't fullfill the message and does not, by extrapolation, reveal to himself the resolute entity of one's might, one's exodus, one's participation and so on, but we do work it all out, out of the major tropologisticistical benigninity.

Getting the go-ahead from the nervous system to philosophize is the automatic suspenseful way, in which the legacy of Van Gogh works its way into our system: theory, again, but trying to reach the level of personal, meaningful generative coherence, demanding self-demanding, resolute activity, that gets the totality, the meandering of the soul and the revolution of planetary conviviality going.

To contain in full the logic of existentiality, the main thing is a certain post recorded revelation, that sincerely computes. Constancy is cultivated through realizing the reality of some essential work, that is then revealed to people as something to make, visualize going, or relating. Our remorse is caused by some exponential component, that we then allow ourselves to understand – this is, then, completely up to us, at least there where annoying or irresistant parts of the soul are concerned. In a very real sense, death heals our scars, as the self seeks to convey in a superficial sense, because the body learns to deal with pain in both a fundamental and an existential sense. Such distinction gives us a logical apparatus that can result in more sentential expression, which we need because we are otherwise incapable. The resulting mind-sentential revolution becomes what are the length-wise systems, the creative position for a whole world ideal, but all this is reminiscent of a good result, brought back, then, in automatic sensibilities, to weak havoc upon our mentality, our life, our mission. Our revelation in the great moment, in which we relish in the constantly changing demands, within everything for what we see, which is now terribly overrated – which, obviously, might be clearly caused by the early and unnecessary understatement of pivotal truths, and clearly, this is the result of some power within what we do, what is consistently done, and what important things amount to. Thoroughly penetrating into the depths of nature and finding, at last, the key to systems of thought that cannot exist otherwise, we find, that the absolute, convincing key is to do whatever we learn, in due time, but with order. The crucial, as it is called, is in its insightedness undisconnectable or indesoluable from the calling of Name (abstractly, probably).

Realizing who the leader is to the state is clearly a wholly different light. The struggle for recognition begins with our immediate work to glory, to life in a fully legal sense, and here, clearly, the identity of our struggle is made whole, alive and coherent to employ in the strict sense of all those terms, because obviously what the truth here brings to the table is a certain full, unhealable blindness to our overt necessity, the bright light of the so-called 'abstract' and the so-called 'world'-name, that demands zero reluctance from the shape of everything we here reveal and delineate. At least for ourselves. As far as one man is conscerned, the truth of our being is made apparent to the strenuous need and the turmoil of our lives. In the scheme of things we can't do enough to be involved in what really amounts to destruction. In such a way, also, we must do everything we can do, to make the world a better place, but this is very much our, crucial, problem, simply because the wants and short-comings of our work is so very disciplined to working out this or that for ourselves, but I see that this is precisely what I meant. This is where we fail. If our power stems only from learning, we would've had to make it synonymous, but we do not do that. I will say then, postulatively, that our mischief is laid out neatly by the only realistic category for learning, again: understanding. We realize, with this, that power refers to power in motion, whereas learning refers to power as understanding.

To us, individuals, the real function of logic is made apparent in exactly that structure of logical deduction that does not pertain to immediate deductive or conductive evidence - which is, certainly, a kind of mastering of one or other skill, and definitely, that stuff is profoundly real to people in every way, simply because it engages directly with what we are. He or she, again, learn to differentiate gender, which is clearly a relatively unimportant issue. The obviousness, we must admit, is dependent on absolute morality-statements, that will ultimately conduct the moral to masculine or effeminate ends, whatever that would mean, and so on. To delineate any truth, then, is a real or hyperreal statement of, indeed, facts. We can't say that the stupirific masses of tomorrow are in any way inspiring. Nor are they in any inspiring self-emandating way relatable to our universe or universitarian culture, that becomes solid through being centered on the university and so on. The basic building block of the madhouse, then, is not universitarian segmentalism, but universal egalitarianism, which is the only real seed of abomination.

To say therefore that what is how and sensibility reveals the cast of lowness and passivity, is greed. The mirage of success is inferior to the harsh lesson of so-called failure, and we realize our only continuous, rewarding success is failure. Therefore, we are never as small as we are led to believe, by senseless discourse – we realize this all-too-well. The good speaker thrives in the daylight of necessity in our spoken-for universe, that comes close to what sustains us, and so on, and this indeed allows to say, without precedent: you don't come close. To people, nature is the grown selector, that makes the physical sensible on the basis of reluctance, and this, then, is the rule that will make all of it worthwhile: our guilt, the pain rejection – all of it can hurt us very deeply, but if we can deal with it, the rewards are also great and can be reducible to elements. All elementary business is therefore related in principle to elements, and this, then, makes the suffering final: only in that moment of painless knowledge, is the logic realized that supports, indeed, the genius encapslated in fact. Retribution is long yet realized, we surmise, through the very word, I gather, and the explanation that gets us going, frees us from the pain. The question, whether or no one's own function in this, was controlleable by oneself, is equally meaningless, but the callousness, with which inhuman monsters coalesce over us, is brutal. I will tell you, by all that I have done, be it for good or evil, it matters to every one, whether or not I can be held accountable for it. With that I state very simply what can only be seen as a way to freedom. The so-called 'dull-moment' moment, as in "never a dull moment", is achieved, in the way that is meant, if one can meaningfully reason about the whole truth.

See, next, the career of the word, as it is tied to any number. If we realize the meaning of numbers, say 255.000, a wise man learns to calculate numbers, perhaps even in their specificity, which requires smartness and imagination to explain. The pain explained just now is caused also by calculation, that people do attempt, and those who hurt us are almost always those who are utterly done lost. The loss of any person, is caused by their own evil, which flows from their deeds, and can be obscured by words. No evil lasts, which leads to intervention. Whether caused, in essence, by law or any powerful being, does not immediately matter, but we do need to find ourselves encouraged in everything to do what is necessary, and keep up with the truth, with the righteousness of power and, ultimately, judgement.

Let it be said, therefore, that here we see the crisis of reason: pain will not leave our life. The life that we have is very important to make anyone think. If the master of the world thinks up a solution to any problem, nothing necessarily takes any particular actuality of course, but we must admit that it does make particular elements work out certain aspects, within the consistency, that then, very rapidly, begins to become whatever: our relative carelessness with regards to the alledged madness of the world that surrounds us. To sustain anything is to practice sincere constancy. Our suffering, vampiric or otherwise, lives in a meta-hungarian sense in our everyday existence, that will start here, as a clear moment of existence, that will bring anything apart and do the right thing, if that truly means astonishment; and this is, clearly, the reconciliation of perfect determination: our oblique, convincing, personal stalwardness is rewarded by a unusual God, that does make an impression, which, finally, creates. The one who makes the creation work, begins to rapidly solve the absolutely basic problems. See, therefore, the consequence of this: perfection. The deeper questions, that we have now given an absolute dull identity, can now be argumentatively argued, saying everything that we need to say, to say it correctly, fittingly and, above all, sensibly. Our understanding powers our continuing life, potentially suffering for the sake of repetition but, by extrapolation, also for standing suffering, that hard work enables.

Those who claim that society inveigns against the center positive, the postulation, that regards itself as itself, to brings itself to what is coming: the moral, therefore, is now paralyzed by the coming, because they who would have the benefit of the doubt, are now no longer knowledgeable about the past. This creates not so much a wholly 'amoral', but frankly a hypermoral, hyperexistential whole, determineable only through resolute, grinding truth, given to us by the timely itself, and that is indeed the reason that we lose it, because we are mentioning anything, trying to find out what something is, but only because the relative conception of what something is, is let made, let down or let up: all those factors are highly abstact, and they need the full measure of full power to regain the inevitable. Here we must recognize that every word comes from the whole. The preceeding is in keeping with what is here expressed. This makes us realize that all continuing thought can pretty much sum to: what we do is reflected in how we do it. Knowing this would require, as I said, a meaningful system of seemingly, but never actually, arbitrary divisions, that are then revealed to us: they are brought back to all this, and this is what makes our actions _absolutely relevant _to everyone. We realize that this is very important for the simple reason that we do need or profit from precedence, albeit in a very superficial, un-understanding sense, that makes it, paradoxically, irrelevant to us individually, but it can easily be reconciled with higher, ablated unions, say God. To understand why all these, non-animal, truths, do matter, it is clear that we need returns of the highest order: returns that make us aware once again of the making of anyone, we must _return_, that is to say, complete the circle in every way, begin a restart, what is clearly reinvigorated in this and, probably, in everything, simply because it attains to an almost 'cartoon' sensibility, as one will finally experience, to get rid of the measure of the freaky law the of the or of yet-yet or, that can only be remade as the final, underivative on to one. For it is as a whole unclear what freak created the in the law, but it seems to conscern only one's immediate relatives in a very real sense, the resolute sense of sensibility.

He who seeks the becoming of assistance, to rectify one's inability to cope with life, simply for the reasons stipulated in what preceded, the levarage that proceeds forward through immediate existence is universal, for the simple reason that one needs the life of eternity, in fact, to sustain the redirection of one's length, and sustain it indefinitely. The words we use, then, are not wrong because they are one word or another, but because they resonate with our sensibility. The difference between republican discourse and sensibility is that the former reaches the sentential 'hope' through mediocre genius, whereas sensibility requires versatility, high-mindedness and literal skill. Clearly, this is best expressed in the Das Wahre ist das Ganze, of Hegel, and Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so of Shakespeare, the first being republican, because it is German, the second being an example of sensibility, because it is English. The English then pertains to sensibility not as a sensible language, but above all as preternaturally sensible, as the expressive non-tongue of the pre-republican individual, really.

Who ultimalely makes distinctions, learns in time that philosophy is the highest endeavor man can engage in, but only because it can entertain life's highest ideas, highest values and most strict delineations. Seeing this can truly do wonders to alleviate mankind's problems, because philosophy repositions life as the central reason for engaging in thought, and here, indeed, we do get step-by-step advancement, to learn the rule of basic life, to get and realize the absolutely relative, and for all these things, philosophy proceeds more steadfastly into those areas. I see that socially, too, it is important, because it rarely seems altogether strange, in fact becoming the sensible unto itself, and this makes one truly understand precisely what is meant by the life-style man needs, engages in and so on. We are barely capable of fathoming the consitution of anything, but we really need to do what we can do to do what is right there: our familiarity with anything, therefore, is something that we clearly need, because this is clearly the whole story. Where we are situated, the time of our days is limited by our personable indignation against the length of our person, that is determinable in both time and space. All dimensionality is therefore real.

After all is said and done, every single reveal that our brain works out, is limited by the league of the reasonable relations, to anyone does: it does have a concrete aspect, that does not have any real position in our direct relation to get anything done, and relate, in fact, to get anything done and make the sensible helpful and worthwhile, which is very much the case, and these do what anyone thinks up and relate to. Every single person does get his clear result, if they make anything work, but it really makes little to no sense to the subject. A kind figure needs whatever one gets done, and this is the learning, but it rarely happends. Our dedication to whatever is rule-based, I believe, relieves the escalation: a figure of revolution, or anything, needs a life in a way to read, to make ends meet. Republican culture needs often morally reproachable actions to maintain not only a national, but cultural essence, to get something, in a way, that needs to be gotten and that could always be understanding-based victoriousness.

Let it here be said, then, that the relation expressed by any antinomy is a collision of forces, not of essences. Every essence needs a decried logical reduction, that we find, totally, described in a way, to relieve and restrain what has been done, eventually, by the existence of something, to get in the best way what one needs to understand what one needs, and this is what one needs above all: simply because of this, the general sentiment is totally deducible by the mind. If our mind can bring us sensible revolution, already, our progress is made concrete and so on, because it has proceeded past the league of the mediocre world, in which we live: in fact, the cognition that is prescient to one, because of the mind's eye, the leading insight – mesmerization – is made past the 'name' and fully, logically abstracted. To the end of logical progress, it really shouldn't matter anyway: we cultivate a logical garden, so to say, that is relevant to both the reader and the mind of the writer. The question of writing is wholly derivative. We realize very strongly that we must not give the mysticism – pure writing – to people we never liked in the first place. Our ministry, the writing to people we see, is very dangerous, but only until we lose all necessary quality, to realize the broad needs of our society. In the world, what works for us is highly derived from one's systematic life, to find out what one is. No real man needs any clear way forward, can really do what he thinks up, but in the last moment, everybody needs the creeds of life, in a way, the life of the soul, to begin the journey to reinvigorate one's own psyche. The man who never words his thoughts but only speaks his mind, is cynical. He effects only the definitive reality of his psychological power, not the specific reality, which results in an important dichotomy, wholly deranged and so on, because it cannot be reverted back to one's foundations: it rarely, or philosophically speaking, incidentally, relieves one's personal senses to get one's feelings ordered. To understand what everything is, a mighty fellow or citizen can never really do what one can to sustain the right state of mind - in no way can this work itself out. The proverbial, a righteous calamity, can hereby be seen as an annex to resolute pre-occupation: a sense of sensibility, that requires one or two overt remedies, in its own, fragmentary or revoking aspect, that we can see here, here or there or anyhere or there, that is: perihelion.

Overt perihelion is a simple mathematical term called apsis. New words to refer to mathematical terms is indeed one way to improve scientific discourse. Our own reflection is made real by what happened, in the past, as also a 'new' or 'redemptive' word for a mathematical truth. Therefore, our calling to one or other redaction makes everything work out to regress in infinitely into our personal world-view, that individuals can learn to fathom, working. Thinking requires us to believe the very relativity we fight against. Enemies aren't a problem in the sense that people believe. Love your enemies. The economy of love to one's others is easy, but this sentence reveals that we can't expect the relative to fall into our lap. The law we have is fundamental, obvious, resolute and eternal: God's law. If we can avoid killing others, we can also love. The idea of our relative being God allows us to see this more clearly: surely, not everyone can say this, because not everyone is the same; the rationality of the perfect singularity, that is to say the understood eternity, is full of the same sustenance (the same pain also) as the continuous infinite, that is to say, the infinite that provides variety.

Let us now start to arrive at thoughts at will, indeed, motivate us to fill the pages of this book: power versus length. All I have said clearly flows from the basic ideas expressed in that symbolism. Weirdly enough, we see many young people unconsciously struggle with some of these very topics; our fear for anything that we see, is nothing, compared to the disgust we feel with something we don't want to possess. The profound motivation, then, to growth, is very much comparable to the meaninglessness occasionally expressed in the fight for recognition, and so on, which I will say, is demanded from us by the whole world, and this determinate invisibility forces us to thrive on such great calculatable principles. Theory provides the first layer of inconceivable oneness, potentially, that, in its simplicity, can sustain us verily in power. But here, too, it seems, we are stuck, again because of its simplicity. Yet, we see that this is not so. The power that flows from the fenomenology of the spirit is in itself arbitrary: the symbolism applies to an insight. If we can word this, theoretical, insight differently, we can get rid of all our wisdomless thoughts, and it is our actions, ultimately, that really sustain us. Let us then state: P1 = P?.

Yet, knowing that our thoughts are then finally liberated this way, we are somehow still incapable of making a proper or hesistant, symbolic gesture, towards ourselves, that makes the universitary requirement, like a Poppin's bag, turn oblique thoughts into churning towers of derivitable thought. To get theory, finally, to make sense in a non-hardcore, mathematical sense, we sciencify it, making every distinction full for its own sake, and truly, that is the whole story as far as we know: because, of course, this is the philosophy of the mind, the way we understand it, and clearly, our strict motivation, for philosophy, makes the theory reconcileable with the structural means we have to understand anything, at least in the way this works: that is to say, as far as this does its profundity in its works. Too often, we see that the reality of a writer gets in the way of his productivity: the threat of being bothered or whatever, makes one immediately aware of the threat posed to his person; here, then, we truly know where the world is going – as the savior of mankind, I must be as friendly, as patient, as good as possible. Yet what has happened was in accordance with the state, and all I have done, made possible by the state. That state, that I don't belong to, will soon be dead. All I have saved is our lives, which means that I will continue my work, as savior, not as a hero, but as a free man, who has laid down his burden. We must realize this, because stupidity rules everywhere, whereas dignity rules nowhere. Truly, I can say, in my total isolation, cut off from everyone, I am in a weird sense happier than ever during my work, for now, at the end of all things, you, dear reader, are with me. I don't really intend this in a dramatic sense, but clearly the Cartesian cogito, I think, therefore I am, is a perfectly balanced republican sensibility, that explains both our total value system, but also retains theoretical consistency because of its strict, logical wholeness. We must, then, always _entertain_ the cogito as true, which is a pivotal accomplishment of crucialized theory. If I return, forever, to what I will consider to be real, is a strict figuration. The masculine is perceived to be that which pertains to some strong divisions that devices clarify, to get going, to realize real things, that we do not absolutely require, in the sense that is the flow of the mechenical, as far as I know: all knowledge, then, deserves to be written down, which shows and explains our critical sensibility with regards to history: and indeed, we should always realize that it is a set constitutive of lies or false truths, although here too, we should, so to speak, adhere to the Napoleonic code.

The might of the word, then, has clearly been demonstrated, again, through the revenge-principle. Revenge is easily construed as vanity, and an important way to illustrate vanity is as being incapable of vengeance. The principle, however, shows revenge is a highly fruitful form. It retains much of knowledge in the most direct sense conceivable, and here, our terrible personal nature is revealed in its real obviousness and so on, bringing recapitulation, bravery and, ultimately, retribution. The principle of vengeance is, therefore, very masculine in its ideal, philosophical guise.

I have the function of the theorizer, perhaps, to help young people find their own identity, which in fact is explained by the work of Imhotep, but in fact is, that length of years does imply oldness. So one's sins do have very immediate consequences. I will say, however, that for me the main thing will always be to exemplify both the factual and in a sign the ironic, to believe myself, and, in young people, self-confidence, strength and power, to sustain their logical virtue. So I guess I am the father from the trinity. I will say, however, that God's omnipotence is a daunting fact, that is hard to solidify, mostly, again, because people have little faith. Understanding who one is, on a cosmic scale, is of no conscern to me or Vincent or Jesus, and as a trinity we make a odd trio. Let me then, as the most powerful of the three of us say, that that it is crazy to think that I am Jesus. We realize that people treat me like a beast, like they slaughtered Jesus and villified Vincent. Today, I promise the children that I'll always be around. No matter what people have done to me, I do not think the system works. All wisdom has gone out of the world and passed into me and my friends. Everybody has gone insane. The truth of me is that I live. After I die, my mind will in a certain sense generate the psyche I sustain, which will allow me to continue my work even after death. I am death. I guess that makes me Anubis' son. In sum, all I can do is do my best to do what I want to do. This simple cause has brought me many friends. I guess everybody saw my fate coming. Still, I made all these decisions myself, to survive this. But I really don't get why I have to do this. All my decisions where in service of this. It doesn't matter. The truth is that the world is a sick disaster. Time is of little immediate consequence. I do not want to live my life again.

Such a paragraph illustrates then what can drive a man during whole portions of his life. In the end, what we see, on the other hand, is that on the truth, life is so very much in our control, through choosing what we want. I could've fullfilled my destiny in thousands of ways, but this one, through the meaninglessness of it, was the most effective. What does that mean? Nothing. I have achieved all my goals.

The knowledge of life is guaranteed. We learn through extrapolation what it is, what something represents and so on. The learnedness of one's whole life, here, is so-called logicality: the grievance of one's sensibility, the hour of one's decision, can't do anything for one or other person, and truly, one ordeal surpasses another, individually, with time and, through perseverence, with logical doubt.

It can't leave anyone to one's truth, what one indeed does to get what one needs.

I read a lot to satisfy certain word-shortages in my brain. Yet this sensation is so easily found to be nothing. Nothing as a word is indeed the most logical way to express writing. – Such as it is, seemingly, that is the purpose of our philosophical system the way we understand all that, getting closer to the full segment of the law, as far as we know. Reading, then, becomes the measure of a lot of business, that we find located in the depths of our mind. In fact, I write also for potential readers, and getting people to fully appreciate the essence of the hegelian paradigm is easy if we can demonstrate it in our own. I see it cannot be the reason of our existence to simply doubt everything. We see, however, that our existence is so very determined by certain power, certain low, certain guise, certain, certainty, struggles, strengths and weaknesses, that do each for each work in their or other people's ways, and this all becomes part of the totality in which each of us, each for each, works, to ascertain the truth.

Here, due to our conviction and applied good sense, we give each other the benefit of the doubt, continuing upward according to strict principles that were real at some point, but failed, somehow, to achieve or revelate anything according to realistic principles. I see that the full measure of truths figures in our life directly, but also as a development to get something done, but this is the whole story: the story of verisimilitude. As our life is made up out of one particular, distinct sensibility. These discrete factors are unusual in their essence, but they cannot presuppose any articular point of view on sensible effect, that, in this, is made entire by our personal application – clearly, this is what I said to understand this fully and realize it in its pure predicament: all of its matters in its figure and its geometry. To cope in an absolute sense with the might of some phenomenon, relative to some other thing, that is ultimately not a phenomenon, requires deep, strenuous application of the deepest mental faculties, that we realize are mentalized, creatively, to our resolute, magnifiscent or otherwise illiteral, liberal ironies, that make the difference of what the climate of a figure or victory or victoriousness might be, or further in some way, to relieve this constant, endlessly searching patterning (coding) of the system.

Continuing further, the system of theory becomes an afterthought, and I will very literally state, that our true intention now becomes the very question of being in its fully understood, eternal sense. The word-signifier becomes the driven, character-eternalized word, that is strictly logical. Or, if we can call it that, becoming, seeing or. Therefore, therein. What we do see is that the greatness is limited in a very real sense. It can't do right by any solid execution of the full sense of any particular, as far as anyone in particular is redirected by fate or pure intent into nothingness. But whatever it is, it pertains very generally to the reality of the therefore. In the strange eventuality of consequence, the man we need is always in the last place you look, frankly because nobody knows what any of it is, for anyone. Leave the rest to the maximal, that can not be disinterested; at least not in any real sense for us or anybody else: we must, at least locally, accept that going full frontal into nowhere, seriously, will not get a real or righteously particular thing going, at least in any strictly discriminate way. Without making everything understandable, philosophy is inferior to theory, but indeed as a tradition, that communicates life's founding myths in covert terms, thinks about individual understanding at all times, refrains from the world and makes things coherent, philosophy exeeds theoretizeable theory, although in a very strict, rigourous sense, philosophy and theory fullfill the same symbolic function. The mesmerizing master sharpens one's arguments to sustain, remember and succesfully read the magic-insight of one's direct institution, and this remains a real factor in a very real sense, that figures directly in the very things we do, and this makes one or other solution devolute and end the messianic expressionism, that seeks to explain the big questions of the world, in fact, to the masses. We realize immediately that life's theories all pertain through skepticism to ourselves, and great peoples build their city of God on the high-flown skepticist theories of the theoretical life, that can be noted for rigour.

Theses then are formulated in this whole goodness. Theses then. Therefore then any one thesis is just any thesis, because it is thesis. Anti-thesis is meant only as posterior analytic of the first anteriority of thesis. To build as a thesis-systematizer is to say: goodness, as opposed to: theses. Multitudes come and go as ones, two's and threes, but never as fours. The twos and two's are perhaps hard to notate for one's true author, which we have, in a similar duality, found notated as a one, two, three or even as a four – but in every case, the facts did not stand out in any particular way, to us, or to anybody. This, then, made the greatness of any one thing stand out tremendously, as a universal or, perhaps, as a verisimilitude.

If we guarantee sustenance through measuring every single step, we agree, through recollection, what glamour gives us, opposed to greed. The kindness of resolution is a law from the machine, which although a thoroughbred horror, can be useful to the world, that dreaded entity, because so many mediocre people don't do what people usually do, in the long story life that inheres within the sensible world, that really matters to the masculine, because it kind of matters to the long-time men of the world, who somehow can't make the sick entity, the macabre totalized in sadism. The struggle for the position of master in any relationship can be deminutively systematized in the sensation of pain. Theses on whatever sadistic thesis-corrolate, however, can be brought back, totally, to torture-slavery and the desire to be a slave. All that crap is irrelevant to masculinity in the realistic sense that all people return to, and that they make senative to the realistic, or, rather, the maximum, the relation, every-relativistic horro-se and sexual horror. All that is opposed to buddhistic restraint. In our immediate logic, all dogs are treated inhumanly, but reveal, in their dog-existence, free beauty. The sensative, then, is a real attempt to restore vegatative animality to actual freedom, and stop inhuman torture from taking place.

The most crucial issue of the messianic discourse is how it ties in with Buddhism, especially in its gaia-gaianisticism, or gaiaii-ology, or, perhaps, gaia-gaiacan-topologistoirridity. True, this is the terminology that refers to indulgence, the firm belief that can't otherwise refer to identities beyond the league of the world, the factual world and, in the end, the protofactual, that leads us towards nirvana: blessing-quality. We must see that all elements in anything can be deduced. If this fails, nobody needs this, nobody can work it out and nobody knows what it is, because, frankly, it does hardly compute with the high desiring factorality of our deepest, most powerful feelings. The correspondence between what is done and what is said is very obscure.

In the unlikely event of total annihilation, the only thing for us to do is to reveal in ourselves through some truth, preferably in theoretical thinking, what everybody in reality, completely gets and needs to comprehend: a resolute need that can be made full and remarkable in the fast beliefs that we hold on to, and that we reason about, and those are all necessary for the future, as far as we know; so let the heroes of existence live on as culture heroes, returning then, too, to the full reasonability of our, mighty, evolution. Here we do seemingly enter the final stretch of our argument, because now our language has become wholly generative. This means that we are indeed beginning to move upward and strictly towards mathematical truth. These truths are considered to be beyond all doubt, but this is clearly impossible. What is possible is that they are wholly theoretical.

Such, therefore, is the importance of symbolism. Theory can prove mathematics as symbolic logic, which is reconcileable with logical atomist logicism, that is to say, new words. Earlier this was mentioned. The wordedness of all the things that we know are hereby worked into the fabric of strict, reconcileable logic, there where logic clearly exists in a real or fathomable sense, for the whole world, there where it amounts to existence, for its own sake relative, to thought, progress and strict existence.

Here our words make clear that vain blatherers burn in hell for al eternity, no matter what excuse they might use. I say that our relation to make-shift crucifixes refers automatically to water, trees and grass-shapes, for example, and ideas. Our, was the word, and yet the kind of cynicism that destroys our expressive hopefulness, destroys nothing that we need, and in fact, usually reduces our strict needs. To symbolize the truth with certainty seems almost impossible. Our life is limited by many dark things: the elucidation of our relationship with the execution of lively association with what we deemed important, at least to ourselves. Scarcely does it matter what anyone needs, to convey life's deeper meanings, but the grasp of any particular effect is marked by symbolic cohesion, smartness of mind and, therefore, rigour. To penalize rigour seems unnecesssary: our actions speak for us. The solution to problems is, therefore, to glean from limitation the merit of symbols with regards to contact and construction – truly, a mighty prospect. Our or to words is made up as or, as seemly or and as total or. To say: or, in English, is automatically gleaned from the symbolism.

Great conclusions demand from us sincerity in a most useful sense: our great continuity with each other, with our world, is meaningful in only one clear extent, the extent of power and symbolism. The antinomy of logic and theory demands from us, simply theoretical words, after which the logical apparatus becomes adequate, at least, to complete Russell's program, which is simply the theoretical side of mathematics. Where the foundation of logic is conscerned, I would please it logically in simplicity. We see the innovativeness of strict, habituated control, sense of restoration and furthermore, the reality based on whatever really matters. I must then bring symbols into the calibration that are needed by the ministry. I speak both for and inside a community; therefore, it is ministry. A minister is then a theoretical logician. To complete the coherent part of Russell's system (there where it pertains to a system), our purpose in genuine recalibration, calibration, calibrating and so on, to feel. Therefore, our goal is mainly to exercise faculties and learn the proper notation, so that we can remember, as we think, what we are trying to do. Tradition is here. The getting of several long-standing meanderings, revealing several things in the global logical apparatus; so, as our system begins to educate not only ourselves, but the world-spirit in something we do not yet fully understand. We must persevere.

To us, the problem of symbolization is hard. Here we will let go all 'soft' terminology, instead relying on claws-out terms. Rigour demands such hardness, because we must penetrate into the most profound reaches of depth. Profundity is contrarian and this will be our entry-point to the law of hardness. Just like ancients formulated their laws proverbally, modern man formulates all entities metaphysically, because this is the whole, extra-individual system, as far as we know, that complies, motivationally, to murder. If proposition 1, say: A, refers to a fact, then proposition 2, say: A2, refers to a squared fact. The theory behind this. The things that we don't think do not occur in the factual world of our thought. This is because anyone can realize the truth about a symbol with proper exposition. To avoid getting 'caught up' in symbolism, we must keep a philosophical attitude, and, indeed, it is all about attitude. Our strong ideas about life are strenuous because they never let up from the apparent, obvious and often wholly automatic processes that go on within our brains, to help cope with symbolism.

Let us, then, here admit how arbitrary our symbolism is. Ideas are forms, but are not formal until we have somehow affirmed our symbolist presuppositions; shape is not form, until it becomes 'coloured' by the poetic sentiment, that thrives on a full or literal sense of liberty; finally, theory and philosophy are weirdly synonymous, until we realize what the words mean. Let us then, with pride, elucidate why we don't know anything for certain, certainly the king of all theories. Let not this dissuade us from admitting the concept of theory lives, perhaps, at the highest level, the exalted one of thought. To get at the main topics of real existence, our profit, in a way, must be deduced from our mainstay: the eclectic. If we can formalize by means of formulae, our theorems can become liveable, and to do this, the main reason of thingification (reifying discourse) is to get certainty happening. To realize exactly what we are doing, a slight rationalization of the theory is necessary. We see that everything is abstractable, so to get at the connection between mathematical truth and the certainty-theory, that I am now expounding in hard terms, we can get an _idea_. The idea is the highest rationalizeable set of connections between extradition, redirection and, in the end, redirected truth. The idea is a home when we grasp the full connection of it to our entire, genuine especial renovation, make-shift estuary, laden overpass or somesuch entity. To realize how effectivity comes into play, in this instance against fullness of life, as far as one can tell, we don't need any particular instance of righteousness: all we need is wisdom. Living is being easy, therefore, grasping what the generation of eternity leaves is necessary, to make the length of our days the focus of our investigation, as far as we can tell. We begin to realize that th certainty-principle is graspable theoretically and that liberates us from metaforicicity, which is caused by having sensibility. The metaphore, then, is the word of limits, whereas idea is the word of ascertaining some guess-work or liberated level of systematization, getting our job done and so on, to do what we could, to do what is doable within some paradigm.

Wherever my home is, it is Elseweyr.


	3. Chapter 3

To properly deduce the meaning of all that has preceded in the Pheeling, this is a corollary to that. Let us use the symbolism that we introduced in the final stretch to determine all the things that we need. I want these good pieces to be the basis of a style of philosophy, that can be fully traditional in a way, perhaps, even, it could become a genre. Mathematics. If we are to understand what the world is, we must also deduce from everything that precedes in some way the reason why it is a genre. The whole system of everything is totally limited or unlimited. This then leads us into whatever eternally understood direction we are going into, and this is the fully understood. But to really understand what a theory is or a philosophy, we must begin in some weird way to determine everything that we know in some concrete way, which can be mysterious or even mystical in this case. I will say then that we can knowledgeably get closer to philosophy as a traditional enterprise by also recognizing the activity of reading within the whole. We can simply read our system as whatever that reading is, getting at the perspectives. These things then become the basis of the rest of the system. We don't need to know what it is about, because scientifically philosophy is naturally systematic, with elementary metaphoricity being the basis of higher deductions. Our personal tradition, then, is clearly something else: it is not even necessarily actually philosophical. All that we realize, is that we learned it from the Pheeling. The Pheeling, then, even without being imaginarily read, can be part of whatever tradition it is, and the fact that it is existential, has been made part of the symbolic part, to be what it is and so on; and I guess we will admit that the heavyness of the existentialist part of the process, was indeed just a natural part of the artistic endeavor or producing the Pheeling first and foremost; this, the philosophical tradition, is simply an interpretation of the words that we used, and because we thought about this whilst writing the Pheeling, especially the symbolic part, we became completely aware of this and could make it is into our strict tradition.

Now, then, we will try begin to see it in its full measurement and that is not hard. In fact, these corrolaries are much easier intellectually to perform, and will be the basis for, not corrolaries, but theses, and every thesis will always somehow prove what it was all about. I guess this will be a great thing for people like Hegel, who worked out a much more grandiose system, because this system will, like other traditions, be mightily teachable to individuals, and they will learn scholarly pursuits and so on from everyone and that will benefit us greatly: we will become the masters of this discipline, and so we will become greatly logical in what we do, to make it all cohere and help us accomplish our greatest actions.


	4. Chapter 4

For us here it is important to realize the totality in which we are making it. The factional account of what we are trying to do is not the same thing as philosophy. For us, the truth is that we do not – at this point – know the full measure of what is to be considered philosophical, and so on. Therefore, the maximum extent of what is going here not what we are trying to ascertain. Let us then put this second, and final, corollary, to be subject the imaginary function.

We realize in due time that what we do is very much the program. Programmatic content is not deducible in the final to any one metaphore or coherence. However, because everything we do has a clear function, everything else also has a clear function. To really understand what happens in our world, the world is consistent to the total and the total is consistent with what we do and say, and this is possibly a contribution to the whole, as far as we know, as far as we understand, and so on. We must, then, bring the factuality of what we do to the whole, and the whole is our functionality. I will then see that the imaginary function is not the same as philosophy, not at all. Our tradition is in the end little more than a thing unto itself, and we must regard the primary texts – the Pheeling – as the center of the work, and nothing more. The tradition we created must either pass under the rubric of philosophy, which coheres with the imaginary function, or simply consist of philosophically-tinged writings in general. We do not see a particular here. However, I will say that we can deduce from what we have accomplished the potential for more things, that are possibly a pure tradition. I said: philosophically tinged. But this is clearly not a big deal. Our entire ordeal is spaced relatively well according to the principles of the world, and this world is in its entirety circumspect, directed and made up to be apparent to the singular world-view and the directive of the world.


End file.
